Sukkah 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Until the conclusion of the final Festival day of the festival,

since they were set aside for the mitzva of the sukka.

But if he stipulated concerning them

before the Festival, at the time he placed them, and said: “I do not refrain from using them, and the sanctity of the mitzva of the sukka should not take effect upon them during the first twilight of the Festival of Sukkot”—

everything follows his stipulation.

And he may use them whenever he wishes.

For the sanctity does not take effect upon the decorations of the sukka for all the days of the Festival unless they were set aside for their mitzva during the twilight at the beginning of the Festival of Sukkot, in which case we say: “Since they were set aside during twilight, they were set aside for the entire day.” But if, during the first twilight of the Festival, he did not set them aside for their mitzva—for example, he said: “I do not refrain from using them”—then the sanctity does not subsequently take effect upon them to prohibit their use throughout the Festival.

In any event, this provides support for the statement of Rav Ḥisda, that one may spread a sheet in the sukka for decorative purposes. For the beraita cited the common practice of spreading decorated sheets in the sukka.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps,

when the beraita teaches that one decorated the sukka with embroidered hangings and decorated sheets, it is referring to a case in which he spread them

on the side

over the walls of the sukka. But perhaps spreading them above, beneath the roofing, is prohibited even for the purpose of beautifying it, since the sheet is susceptible to ritual impurity and is unfit for sukka roofing.

It was stated: With regard to the decorations of the sukka,

such as decorated sheets and embroidered hangings spread above for decorative purposes,

they do not diminish

the height of the

sukka,

whether the issue is rendering it fit when it is higher than twenty cubits, or rendering it unfit when the height of the sukka from its floor to the sheets is less than ten handbreadths. The reason is that the decorations are not considered the roofing of the sukka. For if they were considered part of the roofing, they would be unfit because they are “susceptible to ritual impurity.”

Rav Ashi said: And

if the sheets are spread

on the side,

over its walls, they

diminish

the width of the sukka below the measure of seven by seven handbreadths, since it is no longer large enough for his head, the majority of his body, and his table.

Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s servant, had his tunic soaked in water,

his tunic had become soaked in water,

and he spread it over the sukka,

spreading it over the sukka roofing in order to dry it.

Rav Ashi said to him: Remove it!

Remove it from the roofing, so that

people should not say

that people

are using an object susceptible to ritual impurity as sukka roofing.

Minyamin his servant said to him: Why are you concerned that people will err?

They see it

they see that it is

wet,

and it is obvious to everyone that you placed it there not to roof the sukka, but to dry it.

Rav Ashi said to him: Indeed,

I am telling you to remove it once it dries,

at which point you should remove it from the roofing. But as long as it is wet, there is no prohibition against leaving it on the roofing.

It was stated: With regard to the decorations of the sukka,

sheets spread beneath the roofing for decorative purposes,

that are distanced from it

that are separated from the roofing by

four

handbreadths—

Rav Naḥman said:

The

sukka is fit,

since they were made for decoration and not for roofing.

And

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The

sukka is

unfit,

even though he made them for decoration. They reasoned that since the sheets are separated from the roofing by four handbreadths, they are not subordinate to the roofing, and they are like a tent that intervenes between one sitting beneath them and the space of the sukka. [But Rav Naḥman held that every object made for decoration is subordinate to the roofing and is not an independent tent.]

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna [

who disqualified a sukka whose decorations were separated from it by four handbreadths]

happened to come

to

the

house of

the Exilarch. They had Rav Naḥman lodge them

he lodged them

in a sukka whose decorations

were

separated from it

by

four handbreadths.

They were silent and said nothing to him,

despite the fact that in their opinion the sukka was unfit.

Rav Naḥman said to them:

Have

the Sages retracted their teaching?

Have you retracted your position that this sukka is unfit?!

They said to him: We are agents engaged in a mitzva,

since they had come to greet the Exilarch and fulfill the mitzva of greeting one’s teacher during the Festival,

and we are exempt

we are

from the sukka.

As explained below in the Gemara [25a], agents engaged in a mitzva are exempt from the sukka.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Although it was explained in the Mishna that it is prohibited to sleep beneath a canopy in a sukka,

it is permitted to sleep beneath a curtained canopy

spread around the bed

in a sukka,

even though it has a roof

like the other canopies, unlike the bedposts called naklitin, which do not have a roof a handbreadth wide.

And this is so when it is not

the canopy

ten

handbreadths high above the bed, for then it has the status of a tent, and one who sleeps in it is considered to be sleeping in the canopy’s tent and not in the sukka.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who sleeps beneath a canopy in a sukka has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a case in which it is

the canopy above the bed

ten

handbreadths high, and it has the status of a tent. Therefore, one who sleeps in it is considered to be sleeping in the canopy’s tent and not in the sukka.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Meytivi

from what we learned in the Mishna [below, 20b]:

One who sleeps beneath a bed in a sukka has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara assumed that this refers to an ordinary bed that is not ten handbreadths high.

It follows that the bed intervenes between one sitting beneath it and the space of the sukka; similarly, the canopy should intervene?!

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel interpreted

he established

Shmuel

this Mishna

as referring to a bed ten handbreadths high

above the ground.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

Or if he spread

the sheet

over

canopies, the sukka is unfit.

It is evident that if the canopy has a roof, it intervenes between one sitting beneath it and the space of the sukka.

The Gemara answers:

There too, it is when they are ten

handbreadths high.

The Gemara raises another objection:

But it does not teach this

that only when the canopies are ten handbreadths high do they intervene between one sitting beneath them and the space of the sukka. On the contrary, we find the opposite in a beraita:

As it was taught: Naklitin

are

two,

two posts, one at the head of the bed and the other at its foot.

And canopies

are

four

posts, one at each corner of the bed.

If he spread

a sheet

over canopies,

the sukka is

unfit.

But if he spread it

over naklitin,

the sukka is

fit, provided that the naklitin are not higher than the bed

ten

handbreadths.

It follows that only with regard to naklitin, since they have no roof, do we say that one may sleep in this bed until they are ten handbreadths higher than the bed, since one of the conditions stated concerning a tent is required: either a height of ten handbreadths or a roof.

By inference, with regard to canopies,

which have a roof, they disqualify the sukka

even though they are not ten handbreadths high,

since they have a roof and are considered a tent. If so, the same should apply to a canopy with a roof: even if it is not ten handbreadths high, it disqualifies one from sitting beneath it.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, canopies disqualify the sukka even if they are not ten handbreadths high. Nevertheless, one cannot compare a canopy to canopies and say that a canopy too should be considered a tent even though it is not ten handbreadths high above the bed, because

canopies are different, as they are fixed.

They are firmly attached to the bed. Therefore, although they are not ten handbreadths high, they are considered a tent. But a canopy, which is not firmly fixed, is not considered a tent unless it is ten handbreadths high.

The Gemara raises another objection:

But what of a sukka atop another sukka, which is fixed

the upper one upon the lower one,

and

even so,

Shmuel said

earlier [10a]:

Just as it is fit

for a sukka—that is, it is ten handbreadths high, the measure required for a fit sukka—

so is it unfit

the lower sukka because of the upper one; this applies specifically when the upper one is ten handbreadths high, in which case it is considered a sukka.

This is difficult: Why does one who sits beneath canopies fail to fulfill his obligation even when the canopies are not ten handbreadths high? Is it not “just as it is fit, so is it unfit”? The Gemara answers:

They said: There,

in the case of a sukka beneath another sukka,

for disqualifying the sukka

the lower one, it is specifically

with ten

handbreadths that the sukka above is considered another sukka and disqualifies the sukka beneath it under the law of a sukka beneath another sukka.

But

here,

where we have not come to disqualify the sukka, but only to say that one who sleeps beneath a sheet spread over a canopy is not considered to be sleeping in a sukka,

for

the law of a canopy was stated only

to render

the sheet subject to the status of

“a tent,”

then

even with less

than

ten

handbreadths in height, it

is also a tent,

since the canopy is fixed and firmly attached in its place.

It is explained in tractate Berakhot [chapter 3] that one who stands naked, in a manner that enables him to see his nakedness, may not recite words of sanctity, as it is stated: “And there shall not be seen among you an uncovered matter.” The Gemara now discusses whether one who is naked and sitting beneath a canopy, and extends his head outside the canopy, is likewise prohibited from reciting words of sanctity, or whether, since his head is outside the canopy while his body is inside it, the canopy serves as a garment for him, and he may recite the Shema:

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: One who sleeps naked beneath a canopy may extend his head outside the canopy and recite the Shema.

He is not prohibited on account of “And there shall not be seen among you an uncovered matter,” since the canopy does not have the status of a tent, and he is like one who extends his head outside his garment. But if the canopy were considered a tent, extending his head outside it would not help, since we have an established principle that wherever the majority of a person is located, that is where his body is considered to be. He would be considered as though his head too were inside the canopy, and he would be seeing his nakedness.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Meytivi

from what we learned:

One who sleeps naked beneath a canopy may not extend his head outside the canopy and recite the Shema.

The Gemara answers:

Here,

where we learned that he may not extend his head outside the canopy and recite the Shema,

with what are we dealing? With a case in which the canopy is

the canopy

ten

handbreadths high, and it is considered a tent. But Shmuel stated his ruling with regard to a canopy that is not ten handbreadths high, in which case it is considered a garment.

This too is reasonable,

that the reference is to a canopy ten handbreadths high,

as it teaches in the latter clause: To what is this comparable? To one standing naked in a house, who may not extend his head outside the window and recite the Shema.

Learn from it

that the beraita was speaking of a canopy made like a house, and a house is ten handbreadths high.